The new Star Trek movie is the latest in a series of disappointing and lackluster remakes, designed to make money more than to appeal to fans or create something out of a genuine desire for artistic creation.
*SPOILER ALERT*
The film did have some positives. The casting for many of the characters was nearly perfect, so much so that at certain moments one could close their eyes and imagine the original cast members at a younger age. The dialog was overall fairly well-written, and there were some fairly amusing moments as well. I enjoyed Leonard Nimoy's cameo, not only because it linked this film to the previous, but also because it linked the Star Trek of this film to the previous Star Treks, since this film took place in an alternate universe (something not at all without precedent in Trek canon).
The filmmakers must have been burdened with the task of keeping everything as close to the original series designs as possible without making it seem horrendously dated and out-of-touch, and I think they pulled this off very well. The designs of the ships (including the Enterprise and the Romulan ship) were very interesting, and the enemy had a clear and believable motive. Even the Romulans themselves looked cooler. They were different from traditional Romulans, but neither did the Borg of First Contact look like those of the tv series, and the Klingons changed drastically from the original series to The Next Generation.
However, there were some major problems with this film, and few of them are of the type with which Trek canon nerds would be concerned. The action scenes were intensely shaky and erratic, to the point that Michael Bay had a wet dream about them. This, combined with the lens flares/iBridge vs. blackness of space dichotomy, gave me a headache and hurt my eyes. While most of the characters were interesting enough, Uhura was very boring and two-dimensional, and her romantic sideplot with Spock made absolutely no sense whatsoever, and why did Sulu have a katana, other than that he is an Asian? The product placement also irked me, far moreso than most films, because it destroyed the illusion of being in the Star Trek universe. Let me explain.
One of Gene Roddenberry's main ideas in creating Star Trek was that the future be an optimistic one. One of the most important ideas about the crew of the Enterprise was that it was made from people of all ethnicities on Earth, working together. Americans, Russians, Asians, Africans, and even aliens all worked together in harmony for the betterment of living beings in the Universe, not just for petty personal or nationalistic gains. In an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, Captain Janeway tells an alien that she has difficulty conceiving of money because her society abolished it, and Kirk in Star Trek III didn't know how much a hundred dollars was. In a universe where corporations that need to advertise themselves exist, it naturally means that the future is still a place where people work against each other for personal gain, which seems to be fundamentally incompatible with Roddenberry's vision. I know, I'm getting pretty nitpicky here, but this is something that completely ruined the film for me. Besides, why the hell would they have car phones in a world where they have handheld communicators?
I also found the plot to be very unrealistic at times. I'm not sure in what military outfit a suspended cadet who stows away on a ship and causes a mutiny would be promoted to captain of the flagship of the fleet. I don't care if he did save the day and get to punch some aliens a lot. Also, is it the practice of the Federation to stuff their own people into escape pods when there is a perfectly good brig available? Things like this separate many bad movies from the good ones. At first glance it might be missed, but I just can't take it seriously because of this. It's sloppy.
Overall, most of the really important elements were well done (casting, writing), but the special effects for the most part were overkill and the movie felt less like Star Trek than it did an average action movie. There were long periods of time where I forgot that I was watching Star Trek. The sequel would benefit from a new director I think, one who actually likes Trek. J.J Abrams is quoted as saying that he doesn't like Star Trek but understands why people would like it, which to me says "hey I think this is stupid, but I like money so let's make it! There are definitely worse movies out there, but none of them are Star Trek movies. This is a low point for the franchise.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Optimism and Pessimism are both dangerous
Many people like to consider themselves optimists, or pessimists. They see the glass as either half-full or half-empty, and can't see the other side. Personally, I think both are stupid. Life is neither completely fantastic, nor completely shit, and to think that it is either is to see the world through an unrealistic skew that distorts reality. Both of these ideologies are dangerous.
Excessive optimism forces one to live with their head in the clouds, with no real understanding of what's going on in the world. There are a lot of problems that have to be dealt with, and despite what some people might have you believe, ignoring problems and pretending that they aren't there (ever seen "The Secret"?) WILL NOT make them go away. Ask my parents. They ignored their problems and because of it their marriage fell apart.
Now, that said, there is still a lot of beauty in the world. From wonderful things like love and good friends to the simplest of things like appreciating the changing colours of leaves on a tree in fall, or a beautiful fresh snowfall, or the way that a cloud can look like a puppy. Excessive pessimism blinds you to these things, and makes you believe that everything is shit. This is just as false as the previous point.
Every event has a positive and negative aspect to it, no matter how much one seems to outweigh the other. For example, if not for the second world war, many of the technological advances of the fifties would not have come about, including microwaves. Does that mean that the holocaust was a good thing? Of course not. It did, however, lead to some positive things. Most situations are not so extreme, however, and the advantages/disadvantages are not always so clear. It is important to recognize the positive aspects of a negative situation, and vice versa, but it is also okay to think that a situation really sucks, or is really good, because sometimes they are.
I, for example, am not an optimistic person. I am, however, positive. I do my best to see the good in everything, but it isn't always easy. I feel negatively about things sometimes, but in general I like to think that many things that happen are good things.
In conclusion, positivity and negativity are great. It helps to rationally see a situation, and recognize the nagativity of it while appreciating the positivity. Optimism/pessimism is for people with unrealistic world-views, and can lead to personal catastrophe.
Excessive optimism forces one to live with their head in the clouds, with no real understanding of what's going on in the world. There are a lot of problems that have to be dealt with, and despite what some people might have you believe, ignoring problems and pretending that they aren't there (ever seen "The Secret"?) WILL NOT make them go away. Ask my parents. They ignored their problems and because of it their marriage fell apart.
Now, that said, there is still a lot of beauty in the world. From wonderful things like love and good friends to the simplest of things like appreciating the changing colours of leaves on a tree in fall, or a beautiful fresh snowfall, or the way that a cloud can look like a puppy. Excessive pessimism blinds you to these things, and makes you believe that everything is shit. This is just as false as the previous point.
Every event has a positive and negative aspect to it, no matter how much one seems to outweigh the other. For example, if not for the second world war, many of the technological advances of the fifties would not have come about, including microwaves. Does that mean that the holocaust was a good thing? Of course not. It did, however, lead to some positive things. Most situations are not so extreme, however, and the advantages/disadvantages are not always so clear. It is important to recognize the positive aspects of a negative situation, and vice versa, but it is also okay to think that a situation really sucks, or is really good, because sometimes they are.
I, for example, am not an optimistic person. I am, however, positive. I do my best to see the good in everything, but it isn't always easy. I feel negatively about things sometimes, but in general I like to think that many things that happen are good things.
In conclusion, positivity and negativity are great. It helps to rationally see a situation, and recognize the nagativity of it while appreciating the positivity. Optimism/pessimism is for people with unrealistic world-views, and can lead to personal catastrophe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)